7601 EVERGREEN WAY SAFEWAY 2018-01-02 MF Import

Bob Landles Ron Cameron une 28, 11,78 Reininga Shopping Center at 75th Street and Evergreen Way'' o. EVERET1. EVEHETT, P/>s"iNU,o:. This memo contains traffic comments on the Reininga EIS and traffic concerns that were not included in the EIS. The comments and concerns are not segregated from each other but are organized in an order similar to the EIS. The purpose of the entire memo is to point at specific traffic issues for Reininga's attention, Planning's attention, and resolution by the Planning Commission and Council. There are several significant traffic impacts that must be addressed. The order of the memo information is: I. Trip generation and physical area constraints affecting impacts. II. Trip Assignment 111. Projected traffic operation concerns I'✓. iolitigating measures The Reininga development is referred to as "the Center" throughout the memo. I. Trip Generation and area features The size of the shopping center and potential in suggests the amount of projected traffic to be generated should be double checked. The EIS generally rounded all of the ITE factors down resulting in a lower predicted volume of traffic being generated. It is our preference and practice to round up proiactions in order to identify major impacts. Several recent EIS evaluations can be used to show that most engineer's conduct traffic analysis in a similar conservative mariner. It accounts for the regular weekdav variations such as Fridays high and peaks pecular to different generatlors that should be considered. Dams, bridges, and buildings are usually designed incorporating safety factors in a similar theme. The center traffic being generated was checked two ways shorting a total of 13,000 to 14,000 trips per day. One check was made using the exact ITE factors for individual center generators as the EIS did and the second chick was made using the total square footage for a "community center" which may include other than retail space. Both evaluations show total average weekday traffic of about 14,000 trips per day. The 14,000 trips per day should be used for impact evaluation rather than the 10, 281 of the EIS. Similar analysis shows total new trips should be 7000 per day. Them are two general concepts to evaluate traffic impacts: 1. total new trips (the 7000 figure) affecting roadway capacity in the area, and 2. total new intersection trips (the 14,000 figure) which will be created at the driveways. The 14,000 trips will have to intersect 75 or Evergreen at the Center access points and constitute 14,000 new turning movement (intersection) trips per day. Eoch concept has separate impacts affecting safety and the community. <.t�SR: Tile limited right-of-way and ldeve�opment on 75 street indicate minimal future improvements can be in"Ide to Increase 75 Street capacity and safety. The condominiums west of Evergreen Way generate Ss,nificant pedestrian demand where there are no pedestrian facilities. NAeither are there pedestrian i:u:ilitles east of Evergreen Way on 75 St where Lion's Park, the Youth Recreation cc��, r, and condominiums ra generating pedestrian movement on the 21 foot wide street. The shopping cent�ll substantially increase pedestrian nee do the east side between Evergreen and Beverly Blvd. The potential pedestrian hazard results from ped s an"and vehicles using the same paved 21 foot street space. Everett area residents are well aware of November -December Evergreen Way traffic problems resulting